BoxRec

banjo wrote:What if they've said something about you that isn't true?

Give them a spinebuster and put them in the Boston crab.

Horse wrote:

banjo wrote:What if they've said something about you that isn't true?

Give them a spinebuster and put them in the Boston crab.

Or a northern lights suplex followed by a camel clutch.

Was ESB any good any more? I always presumed it went downhill after I retired

Horse wrote:

liamlion wrote:No, but he did issue legal proceedings against his own brother for defamation.... maybe not such a good choice of an example, my friend.

If a member of my family sued me I would shoe their head in.

What sort of vile shite sues their own family?

The idea of a person suing their own family is extremely revolting to me.

I hope you're being ironic?

Horse wrote:

liamlion wrote:No, but he did issue legal proceedings against his own brother for defamation.... maybe not such a good choice of an example, my friend.

If a member of my family sued me I would shoe their head in.

What sort of vile shite sues their own family?

The idea of a person suing their own family is extremely revolting to me.

I would happily do it though it depends what kind of family you have and what they are capable of.

liamlion wrote:I hope you're being ironic?

What do you mean?

What sort of soulless vermin would be willing to sue their own family?

Horse wrote:

dondada wrote:Coco's point is fine (though I wish he himself would adhere to it more often). With rights come responsibilities. Free speech needs to be balanced against the rights of the individual. Lies/inaccuracies don't qualify as being protected under 'free speech'.

No, true freedom of speech includes the right to lie.

dondada wrote:Unfortunately, it's a myth that we have free speech, anyway. If you don't have a fortune, sometimes you have to STFU, unfortunately.

I partially agree. We don't have free speech in this nation, but we bloody well should have.

If the average person stopped being a subservient dipshit then we could have true freedom.

I actually feel quite free to say what I want in this Country.

1) If I'm talking bollocks someone will provide evidence to the contrary. If I say; this might be true, imo, maybe, this could have been a factor, etc, I feel I can say pretty much anything I want (from my personal perspective). If my evidence is hearsay, as long as it's outlined as such (allegedly, my late Grandad once told me, etc), I also feel pretty free.

2) If want I want to say crosses moral boundaries, then maybe I shouldn't be able to lie or say everything I want (be racist or sexist, generally bigoted, etc). It's right that there are laws in place to protect against this kind of abuse of my tongue.

I do agree about the average person not being so subservient and not speaking out against things which they don't agree with. Our moral framework and social standards have often come about through people speaking against the grain. At one point Politicians used to be placed in the Tower of London for things such as hearing the qualms of the poor. I can't think of many things which I aren't allowed to speak out about today; banks, religions, nations, politicians, masonry, monarchies, oil companies, large scale land ownership, TV stations and other media outlets, repression, persecution, false imprisonment, etc. I hope we can continue to progress as there's still a lot more to be done.

JDC wrote:I actually feel quite free to say what I want in this Country.

1) If I'm talking bollocks someone will provide evidence to the contrary. If I say; this might be true, imo, maybe, this could have been a factor, etc, I feel I can say pretty much anything I want (from my personal perspective). If my evidence is hearsay, as long as it's outlined as such (allegedly, my late Grandad once told me, etc), I also feel pretty free.

If the elite felt in anyway threatened by what you had to say then you probably wouldn't be allowed to say it.

JDC wrote:2) If want I want to say crosses moral boundaries, then maybe I shouldn't be able to lie or say everything I want (be racist or sexist, generally bigoted, etc). It's right that there are laws in place to protect against this kind of abuse of my tongue.

OMG, crossing the boundaries must not be allowed!! Offensive language must be subverted wherever it is heard!!

I completely agree!! This is the year 2012, any offensive language must be stopped. OMG!!!

JDC wrote:I do agree about the average person not being so subservient and not speaking out against things which they don't agree with. Our moral framework and social standards have often come about through people speaking against the grain. At one point Politicians used to be placed in the Tower of London for things such as hearing the qualms of the poor. I can't think of many things which I aren't allowed to speak out about today; banks, religions, nations, politicians, masonry, monarchies, oil companies, large scale land ownership, TV stations and other media outlets, etc. I hope we can continue to progress as there's still a lot more to be done.

Yeah, everyone is trying to stop the elite nowadays (only joking they aren't are they?).

Most people are brainwashed sillytards and whilst they will say vague things against the ruling elite, going into details against the ideas of their rulers hurts their simple minds.

Horse wrote:

banjo wrote:What if they've said something about you that isn't true?

Give them a spinebuster and put them in the Boston crab.

I'd punch them in the face and drop the knee with this style of dance move dropped in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KGv53XMUkI

Horse wrote:

dondada wrote:Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the first one. Just a difference of opinion on the definition.

The major problem is who decides what is true and what is not. I would imagine the super rich get to decide that and I consider that to be unfair to the normal people.

It is far more fair to legally allow incredibly offensive lies.

I tried to draw a line under it with 'agree to disagree' because I knew you would say something like this

No, of course it isn't more fair to allow incredibly offensive lies. The same logic would mean that one would regard it is an infringement of one's personal liberty to stop people stealing, killing, etc. With rights come responsibilities.

A good example has been offered of potential consequences above.

Polenta wrote:I think this thread could do with closing?

Click on the '!' icon in the bottom corner of a post and report it, stating your reasons.

Coco wrote:

Horse wrote:

Coco wrote:Free to say what you want and also being free from people saying things that are not true.

That is the opposite of free speech.

I think you get my point

Freedom of speech doesn't apply over here. Defomation prevents freedom of speech, as you can get sued for saying what you think if it affects someone's reputation, even if it is true. That's why the law suits only affect the British forums. The American's have freedom of speech so they cannot be sued

A recent example was the pudendum that got convicted (rightly so) so the racist Muamba abuse. There's a guy in the states (Chet Walken) who regularly posts racist abuse (https://twitter.com/Walken4GOP) with no concequence as freedom of speech applies in the states and it is not a criminal offence to say what you like... racist or otherwise

So... freedom of speech doesn't exsist if you are British unfortuently. Of course if you have an American IP address, go ahead and say whatever you like about that little that Maloney and his mate FishEyes

What a pudendum , ive just checked his tweeter via your link , someone needs to knock him the fornicate out .

Polenta wrote:

dondada wrote:

Polenta wrote:I think this thread could do with closing?

Click on the '!' icon in the bottom corner of a post and report it, stating your reasons.

Read the last page, the 'reasons' are self evident.

Thanks for the advice. Regardless, should you wish to suggest that a thread be closed, I'm simply advising you of the procedures which will lead to the moderators looking into your request.

Polenta wrote:

Looking On wrote:What a pudendum , ive just checked his tweeter via your link , someone needs to knock him the eff out .

Daily for the rest of his life

Abuse has been sent to him

danconnollyeire wrote:
So... freedom of speech doesn't exsist if you are British unfortuently. Of course if you have an American IP address, go ahead and say whatever you like about that little that Maloney and his mate FishEyes

Er, please don't, because it might very well affect the distributor (i.e. the platform you're using).

Looking On wrote:What a pudendum , ive just checked his tweeter via your link , someone needs to knock him the eff out .

Yes... the things he was saying about Muamba was sickening. But like I said in America they have complete free speech (that's an extreme example of course)

dondada wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:
So... freedom of speech doesn't exsist if you are British unfortuently. Of course if you have an American IP address, go ahead and say whatever you like about that little that Maloney and his mate FishEyes

Er, please don't, because it might very well affect the distributor (i.e. the platform you're using).

What you mean mate?

danconnollyeire wrote:

dondada wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:
So... freedom of speech doesn't exsist if you are British unfortuently. Of course if you have an American IP address, go ahead and say whatever you like about that little that Maloney and his mate FishEyes

Er, please don't, because it might very well affect the distributor (i.e. the platform you're using).

What you mean mate?

Oh, you mean the forum. Like I said it only applies to the Brits. So if current scene, for example, is run from the states, it's fine to say what you like

danconnollyeire wrote:
Oh, you mean the forum. Like I said it only applies to the Brits. So if current scene, for example, is run from the states, it's fine to say what you like

Oh, if only life were so simple mate! What people don't understand is that even if you are 'fine' legally, it can cost a lot of time, energy and money to get to the position where somebody says 'Aye, you're fine'. This is how bullies work mate.

dondada wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:
Oh, you mean the forum. Like I said it only applies to the Brits. So if current scene, for example, is run from the states, it's fine to say what you like

Oh, if only life were so simple mate! What people don't understand is that even if you are 'fine' legally, it can cost a lot of time, energy and money to get to the position where somebody says 'Aye, you're fine'. This is how bullies work mate.

Yeah I get your point. At the end of the day, it's pathetic. The only person forum talk affects is their pathetic selves. Put it this way, if you go in to an industry, no matter how good you are at what you do, and care what people say about you, then you are in the wrong business. I'm sure Wayne Rooney could finding millions of nasty comments about him online but if he stressed about what everyone said like Bunce does, he'd have a heart attack

Horse wrote:

liamlion wrote:I hope you're being ironic?

What do you mean?

What sort of soulless vermin would be willing to sue their own family?

Well, 2 points... If a member of someone's family tells untruths about them, then surely the wronged person has a right to redress in the civil courts, particularly if the family member telling the untruths is causing real problems with his/her lies and is unwilling to reason with good sense.

Secondly, you're calling someone who commences a legal action for defamation 'soulless vermin' and in response you state that you would deal with such a person with violence. Youre making a sweeping and ignorant statement, that doesn take into account thè circumstances of each case - circumstances that may well validate a person suing another family member.

Do you seriously believe that such a violent response, that you champion would not be akin to the actions of someone described as 'vermin'?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:There is no such thing as free speech, in any country. And I don't think completely unadulterated free speech is something to strive for. Imagine the world we'd live in if anyone could make up and say whatever they like free from prosecution.

There was a story in the local news a few months ago about a man from Sale who was having a campaign of hate being waged upon him by some woman he'd spurned. She told all his neighbours he was a paedophile, and even created Facebook threads to say he was, the man was actually assaulted because of it. Is anyone going to seriously tell me they would defend her actions under some childish notion of 'free speech'?

Horse would.

Polenta wrote:

banjo wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:There is no such thing as free speech, in any country. And I don't think completely unadulterated free speech is something to strive for. Imagine the world we'd live in if anyone could make up and say whatever they like free from prosecution.

There was a story in the local news a few months ago about a man from Sale who was having a campaign of hate being waged upon him by some woman he'd spurned. She told all his neighbours he was a paedophile, and even created Facebook threads to say he was, the man was actually assaulted because of it. Is anyone going to seriously tell me they would defend her actions under some childish notion of 'free speech'?

Horse would.

danconnolly called me a PIGG, now there's a HORSE, how many more farmyard animals on Boxrec?

Well if you're not Pigg you could be Chicken?

Shereffah is a donkey